I mean sure it's perfectly natural, sure, whatever, it's also perfectly natural if the rest of us decide to ostracize and/or throw you in jail for it.
Probably not, but that begs the question: is killing animals wrong (given that it would continue to occur at roughly the same rate even if there were no humans in the world)?
One way to approach questions of moral obligation is to consider the actions of the median person. As an example, we could simplistically say that someone who emits more than the median amount of CO2 is responsible for anthropogenic climate change, whereas someone who emits less is not responsible for it.
In the case of animals and humans eating each other, though, the set of agents being considered might have to be the set of all animals on Earth. Under that analysis, since there are apparently 21 quadrillion spiders alive on the Earth today[1], the vast majority of which are exclusively carnivorous, any human who obtains some of their calorie intake from plants is less carnivorous than the median animal.
[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2215174
[1] https://www.allthingsnature.org/how-many-spiders-are-there-i...
Would it? Maybe in absolute terms when you include insects, but it's less clear if you talk about specific taxa. >50e9 chickens per year are slaughtered (and most don't have great lives before that), which is comparable to low-end estimates of the total number of wild birds on the planet (https://www.dw.com/en/50-billion-birds-live-on-earth-new-stu...). It seems likely that humans kill more chickens pa than non-humans kill all other birds combined.
But nature documentaries aren't really the best way to learn about it. They're designed to entertain rather than inform. They show an exceedingly skewed view of nature.
They're also not a great source of morality. You're not a bear. In particular, you don't live among bears. You have a sense of conscience that's different from a bear's, as a consequence (both nature and nurture) of living a very different life from a bear.
Journey to the Microcosmos - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBbnbBWJtwsf0jLGUwX5Q3g
For example - a Paramecium hunter - https://youtu.be/yXiJ__5-tI8
Technically the truth, because insects and fish are mostly eaten alive. But mammal predators generally kill their prey before they start eating it.
The only reason I may care about animal suffering is because the other human can get angry can cause me trouble.
It might be wise to moderate that position by also objecting to people taking pleasure in seeing/causing the suffering of animals. You may not care about the experience of those animals, but you should still care what effect it has on the human who indulges that side of themselves.
Similarly you should also care that humans are not excessively exposed to scenes of "necessary" animal suffering, whether that be abattoir workers or veterinarians. Having psychological counselling mandated and freely available for these professions would be an ethical improvement for the world even if it didn't reduce the amount of animal suffering at all.
I wouldn't object to people taking pleasure in seeing/causing the suffering of animals, as long as its only limited to animals (does not harm other human).
Simply personal preference.
>And that means you're okay with things like torture of animals and bestiality?
Yes